St. Marys Honor Center vs. Hicks - 779 Words

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, Chaitovitz, 1994). Justice Scalia labeled Saint Mary’s Center v. Hicks case â€Å"pretext-plus† approach. Other courts, commentators, and analysts originally also classified the term pretext-plus. The approach of this case is similar to â€Å"pretext-only† approach from the case McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green of 1973 (Cundiff, Chaitovitz, 1994). The employee must develop a discrimination case and accepted as correct and proved†¦show more content†¦The employee must also prove that it is a pretext for discrimination, which is the requirement for the pretext-only approach. Additionally, if the employer is not imminent to deliver an explanation of the conduct, the presumption of illegal discrimination is possible. On the other hand, an employee must submit additional proofs of discrimination to have significant chances of winning. Bogardus (2012) the controversy of this case was remarkable because the plaintiff charge started encloses the decision itself. The pretext-plus approach by Judge Scalia was corresponding under the Title VII. The public response to the case was not unanimous. Some observers viewed that Saint Marys pretext-plus approach as a comprehensive deviation of the ruling. Establishing the pretext is what makes the plaintiff prevailed. The argumentation of this case was it is impossible for the plaintiff to prevail under pretext-plus because this approach requires direct evidence of discrimination. Reviewing the factual setting and source of the case is essential in legal analysis. Melvin Hicks was an employee of Saint Marys Center from 1978 to early 1984. Hick is Black-American and a satisfactory employment history. Saint Marys Center is a correctional facility. Due to the complaints of the condition of the facility by the state and inmates, Saint Marys conducted an undercover investigation (Cundiff, Chaitovitz, 1994). The center concluded that reorganization and staff changes are needed to